Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedingsA conclusion that a mental disorder is of such a kind or degree as to warrant compulsory confinement can only be justified if other, less severe measures, have … Continue reading Witold Litwa v Poland: ECHR 4 Apr 2000
A jury had found, under section 4(5) of the 1964 Act as amended, that the defendant was unfit to plead. The court considered section 5 of the 1964 Act. Held: A judge of the Crown Court is obliged under the section to make a mandatory order containing restrictions on the liberty of the accused person … Continue reading Regina v Grant: CACD 22 Nov 2001
The Court limited itself to article 5(1)(e), when it stated that: ‘the notion of ‘lawfulness’ in the context of article 5(1)(e) of the Convention might have a broader meaning than in national legislation. Lawfulness of detention necessarily presumes a ‘fair and proper procedure’, including the requirement ‘that any measure depriving a person of his liberty … Continue reading Zagidulina v Russia: ECHR 2 May 2013
Mr Johnson awaited trial for crimes of violence. He was diagnosed mentally ill, and on conviction made subject to a hospital order, and restricted without limit of time. He made progress, but was not discharged or re-classified. At a fourth tribunal hearing in June 1989 the opinion was that he was no longer suffering from … Continue reading Johnson v The United Kingdom: ECHR 24 Oct 1997
The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act. Held: The House allowed the Hospital’s appeal. The policy was lawful. Seclusion was to be seen as … Continue reading Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz: HL 13 Oct 2005
The right of access to the courts is not absolute but may be subject to limitations. These are permitted by implication since the right of access ‘by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and place according to the needs and resources of the community and of … Continue reading Ashingdane v The United Kingdom: ECHR 28 May 1985
